On Nov 27, 2007 10:08 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 27/11/2007, Alec Conroy
<alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/27/07, Relata Refero
<refero.relata(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Instead, we are
> subject to this climate of paranoia. Nobody is comfortable when this
kind of
> siege mentality develops. The outside
opinion at the RfC that I quoted
> earlier demonstrates it. But I am yet to see a single acknowledgment
that
> this stuff has gone too far.
Exactly. It sucks ALL the life out of the
community. It turns us
against each other.
No, I think starting with an assumption of bad faith and shouting
"PROVE you weren't behaving evilly!" does much more in that direction.
Your working definition of "cabal" does in fact appear to be "group of
people talking that I'm not in."
In the email that Alec was responding to, I had quoted an earlier message
in which
I laid out the fact that a lack of opposing viewpoints might lead
to inefficient, over-reactive and over-restrictive blocking. In that earlier
message, I had gone on to say "Note that there are absolutely no assumptions
of bad faith, caricatures of an opposing viewpoint or anything of the sort
in the above discussion, so do try not to respond as if there are."
Congratulations on doing both, even after I suggested it. I invite you to
explain the assumption of bad faith contained in that argument.
Nobody suggests anything but good faith, or expects people to prove their
good intentions. We know everyone's intentions are good, just like we know
to an extent how most people would carry out those good intentions.
RR